(08-11-2013 02:48 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: It depends on what you're filtering. Do you want to know what you could face or do you want to avoid facing it?

We did the usual things when I was pregnant, blood tests checking for this and that...I ended up with a son with autism. Given the opportunity would I not have him or have him and arm myself with information? I would totally choose the latter and fully arm myself with every bit of information possible.

I want to avoid facing something. Like cystic fibrosis.

I have no issue with genetic testing for serious debilitating, quality of life sucking illnesses.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Yep, as long as someone's not trying to weed out "the gay gene" or some other weird unethical notion, I would say not wanting to continue a possibly inherited disease is part of being a responsible parent.

Years ago, 1980s - I had a friend who had not yet been tested for the Huntington's Chorea that his father inherited, because such technology was not possible at the time. Just the remote possibility that my friend could have it, effected every aspect of his life including leaving or staying in any relationship... even his relationship with me.

He and his brother were tested in the mid 90s as soon as the disease was genetically mapped. He was diagnosed with the disease while his brother was not. Most people with Huntington's choke to death because of the throat and esophageal spasms so, when his symptoms became unmanageable... rather than choke to death, he starved himself so that his organs would fail from malnutrition.

I'm coming upon the one year anniversary of the death of the one man on the planet, who's children I sincerely wanted give birth to. With such technology, "morality" is kind of a non issue for me.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(13-11-2013 04:42 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote: I am all for it, IVF gives you the option for a designer baby.. well its a designer pregnancy isn't it?

I would like to see the ethics behind eugenics, from people who do not have the limitations of 'gods creation'.

If it was a natural pregnancy, and the child had a genetic disorder would you terminate? What if it was not the sex you wished for?

Why is it different with IVF? the genetic disorders and sex aren't fully apparent until they are fertilised are they not? So you are practically terminating these potential pregnancies..

Its a sticky subject.. thoughts?

(Its really hard saying you wish for eugenics, because it got so misused in the past)

I see what you are saying but I think you are using reductio ad absurdum. Please keep in mind that these couples would get pregnant naturally if they could. But they can't. All those eggs that get fertilized naturally just pass right on through. Because even if the plumbing and manufacturing is perfect, if the hormone levels aren't right, there will be no time for that egg to attach.

IVF can cost as much as $25,000. These couples who resort to this are just playing the hand they were dealt. Do you wear eyeglasses? Take medication? Ever had surgery to remove your appendix? Then you are messing with nature.

Do you object to a couple using IVF to create the genetic match for donation to a ill child?

If I had a late term pregnancy, where tests showed that the child, that, if born, would suffer horribly and die without life support, I think I would terminate that pregnancy.

My good friend terminated her pregnancy late because her fetus had anencephaly. Which is a brain without frontal lobes. It would never have consciousness. It's also referred to as brain death.

Have you ever put an animal to sleep because to extend that suffering is selfish? Just so that you don't have to be the one to bear the responsibility of that decision?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson

If we terminate embryo's because they are a boy or girl, how long until we terminate an embryo because its ginger?

I am all for eugenics.. it is a highly positive premise.. that has been misused in the past in very evil ways. If we can produce healthy children our society will be better off. How true this statement is, is questionable..

How moral is it to give birth to a child that will have a shitty quality of life until it dies without really achieving anything? Giving birth to a baby that is going to be in pain for its entire (but mercifully short) life. "A good man that does nothing, nothing good gets done"

I am totally in support of IVF, I fully support the scanning and detection of genetic disorders, and the rectification or unfortunate abortion that results. I feel it is better for the child and better for the parents.

(05-11-2013 05:21 PM)Cathym112 Wrote: Is there anything morally questionable about genetic testing on embryos for IVF implantation of only genetically healthy embryos? What about choosing the sex?

No, there is nothing morally questionable about selecting only healthy embryos or selecting only those of a desired sex. If there were a shortage of females then an argument could be made against selecting only male embryos but since no such situation prevails that argument is irrelevant.

Even if it were possible to select those embryos with certain desired propensities that wouldn't be morally problematic either because all you would be doing is selecting from the sexual combinatorial possibilities that already exist. You aren't genetically engineering a genotype that the gametes of your partner and yourself are otherwise incapable of producing.

More generally, there is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with eugenics. When people choose their reproductive partner (to whatever extent they can be said to be choosing) they are in effect practicing eugenics via selective breeding. If two people that are each over 6' tall choose to have a child they are choosing to have a child that is over 6' tall. People do choose long-term partners with a view to producing children that have their partner's qualities. We already practice eugenics but in a decentralised rather than centrally-planned manner.

(15-11-2013 04:29 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote: If we terminate embryo's because they are a boy or girl, how long until we terminate an embryo because its ginger?

The embryos that are produced by IVF aren't persons so it doesn't matter what criterion is employed to decide which will be implanted and which will be discarded. There is nothing morally problematic about refusing to implant a "ginger" embryo. We aren't talking about a ~3rd trimester foetus, we are talking about a 3-day old embryo.

This is what 3-day old embryos look like:

In what sense do these collections of undifferentiated cells possess personhood?

(05-11-2013 05:21 PM)Cathym112 Wrote: Is there anything morally questionable about genetic testing on embryos for IVF implantation of only genetically healthy embryos? What about choosing the sex?

No, there is nothing morally questionable about selecting only healthy embryos or selecting only those of a desired sex. If there were a shortage of females then an argument could be made against selecting only male embryos but since no such situation prevails that argument is irrelevant.

Even if it were possible to select those embryos with certain desired propensities that wouldn't be morally problematic either because all you would be doing is selecting from the sexual combinatorial possibilities that already exist. You aren't genetically engineering a genotype that the gametes of your partner and yourself are otherwise incapable of producing.

More generally, there is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with eugenics. When people choose their reproductive partner (to whatever extent they can be said to be choosing) they are in effect practicing eugenics via selective breeding. If two people that are each over 6' tall choose to have a child they are choosing to have a child that is over 6' tall. People do choose long-term partners with a view to producing children that have their partner's qualities. We already practice eugenics but in a decentralised rather than centrally-planned manner.

We are in agreement about something. Holy shit!

Chip, I don't know a ton about genetics. I'm leaning because we are going through this. I'm pretty solid on the dominant vs recessive. If 2 people over 6 feet fall have kids, those kids might not necessarily be tall. Depends on what recessive genes they have.

Just like 2 brown eyed people can have a 1 in 4 chance of having a child with blue eyes if both parents carry the recessive blue eyes

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson

(05-11-2013 05:21 PM)Cathym112 Wrote: Is there anything morally questionable about genetic testing on embryos for IVF implantation of only genetically healthy embryos? What about choosing the sex?

Even if it were possible to select those embryos with certain desired propensities that wouldn't be morally problematic either because all you would be doing is selecting from the sexual combinatorial possibilities that already exist.

Chip - isn't it possible to run the risk of breeding out an unfashionable (not necessarily a detrimental) trait if too many people do this centralized planning?

Something innocuous like brown eyes vs blue. If too many people want blue eyes, very soon, there will be no brown eyes because it will be impossible for 2 truly blue eyed adults (and not hazel) to have a brown eyed child.

For anyone reading that doesn't know how this works, this is how 2 browned eyed adults can have a blue eyed child, parent 1: Bb, parent 2: Bb

Possible outcomes BB,Bb, Bb, bb. Since Brown eyes are the dominant gene, if there is a capital b in the mix, brown eyes you have. So the parents have a 1 in 4 chance of having a blue eyed child.

In that case I do see the slippery slope argument. Ie, only the rich can afford the genetically elite kids.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson